User talk:BradFraggle
E-mail Hey, Brad -- Can you e-mail me, so I have your e-mail address? There's something that I want to ask you about off-wiki. -- Danny (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Muppets.com Just a question, as a newbie here, but why did you kill all of the extra info on the Muppets.com page? I was just thinking the more info the better, in a wiki kind of environment, especially for the visitors who may not be as acclimated to the Muppets on the web. Thanks bro.DrummerMan 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC) :I didn't kill the information you added to Muppets.com. But most of it was about Muppets.go.com (not Muppets.com) - so I just moved it to the appropriate article. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC) :: Ah... see... newbie mistake. I didn't realize there was a seperate page for Muppets.go.com. I'm still thinknig as a web developer. Thanks. DrummerMan 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ::: I'm not quite sure why they are two seperate pages either... but they are. -- Brad D. (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ::::I didn't create the pages, but I think the idea of having separate pages was that "Muppets.com" would be a description of how the site used to be, before Disney took over. But nobody's bothered to add that description yet. -- Danny (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I'm blocked? I'm blocked. It says I'm coming from the blocked IP of 216.224.121.143 which simply is not true. What's going on here? I see Henrik and Jogchem are having similar problems (with the same IP too). There seems to be something wrong with the wiki here. :( -- Brad D. (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC) :Weird -- it's some kind of glitch that's happened a couple times before. The wiki starts thinking that everybody has the same IP address -- so when a vandal gets blocked, it blocks everybody. I unblocked the vandal, so that'll free everyone up. I'm sorry about that. I'll tell the Wikia folks about it. -- Danny (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC) ::Thanks. -- Brad D. (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) D'oh, the problems back. This time I'm blocked because IP 216.224.121.143 (again with that same IP...and an IP that I'm not) was used by blocked user MuppetBird. -- Brad D. (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC) :Okay, I unblocked MuppetBird. The folks at Wikia say that they're fixing the problem now, and it should be cleared up soon. -- Danny (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Henson Films Hey Brad, I don't think its a good idea to link out to complete Henson films available for free on YouTube or other sites. I know they're not commercially available, but Henson is particularly protective of those early projects and it would reflect bad on the wiki if we included the links. — Scott (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Imaginary Uprights Hi, Brad. Why was Imaginary Uprights blanked? — Scott (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC) :I merged the information in with the Uprights back when I cleaned-up The Song of the Cloud Forest characters because the term "Imaginary Uprights", as far as I could tell, was a made-up term for the animals' vision of the humans. For some reason I goofed and did put in the redirect. If you think this alternate version of the Uprights warants their own article, feel free to recreate it - but without a source for "Imaginary Uprights" I would rather see it be "Uprights (puppets)" or something like that. -- Brad D. (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Book characters Brad, all those characters you're moving to a new Book category already exist in a category created expressly for them. — Scott (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC) :Well my goal was to move them out of Category:Sesame Street Characters while keeping them grouped as "sesame" - since we don't include characters only from the films (such as Miss Finch) or specials (such as Joe Marley), it seems odd to have characters only from books (such as Daisy) in there. -- Brad D. (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC) ::Dude, please stop. We'd decided a long time ago that book characters still belong in the Sesame Characters category. Please stop doing this -- we're going to have to undo all of that. -- Danny (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC) :::Sorry, I didn't know a discussion had been made on this subject. But why don't characters films or specials belong in the Sesame Characters category? I see Miss Finch or Lightning the reindeer as more of a Sesame Street character than Elmo's sister. If it is for characters from the Sesame "universe" it should be all of them. If it is for characters from the Sesame TV show it should only be them. It seems like an odd line is drawn as to what is/isn't a Sesame character here. Sorry for the extra work in reverting, if I was wrong, I just don't understand what makes, or doesn't, make someone "Sesame" now. -- Brad D. (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC) ::::I think specials characters do belong in the SS Characters category. But that conversation should take place elsewhere. Generally, it should be noted that any large-scale changes should be discussed first so as to save us all from extra work later. — Scott (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC) :::::Ugh. I really wish you'd asked before you did that. You're a fantastic contributor, and you add all this great stuff -- but every once in a while, you get a wild hair to make some big category change, and then you just go ahead and do it without asking anybody. I ultimately agree with the way the Muppet Movie categories shook out, but it really wasn't in the wiki spirit to make such a sweeping change without even telling anybody what your plan was. You ended up creating category names that I don't think work, and I had to spend an hour this morning cleaning it all up and getting everything in its proper place. :::::Your question of why some characters are in one category and not others is a very good question. But it should be asked on Current events first, before you come up with your own answer and start moving stuff around. :::::So I'm going to ask you, please: Before you make any other category change of any kind -- especially huge sweeping ones like the ones you've done over the last couple days -- please post on Current events first. In fact, I'm going to propose that as a guideline from now on, that nobody can create or significantly alter a category without asking about it on Current events. I think we need a better system than the one we have now. -- Danny (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::Again, I'm sorry. After looking at the discussions to exclude movie characters and special characters I didn't think I was out of line for taking out the book characters would - in fact, based on the past precedents and reasoning I thought that was the desired set-up. As the characters, were never used again and tended to be isolated in a way from the larger 'universe', seemed to make a separate category worthwhile (at least for browsing), and were not featured in the show. Clearly there is a discrepancy on the definition and it should be brought up on Current Events or somewhere to discuss and define. I apologize for overstepping my bounds and getting carried away before getting a full "go-ahead" from the entire community. I try to bring up discussion on change, but when I get a burst of time/energy are there appears to be a clear and accepted decision, precedent or organizational standard used elsewhere in the wiki I get, well, "carried away" (such as last night, when I added to The Muppet Movie, while matching the form Dark Crystal had been using for 11-months). I apologize for this, and will from now on bring up all changes in formal discussion directly before instituting any change (and not waiting months to enact old discussions or concepts, or follow the form of other similar sections or decisions). Again I'm sorry for the extra work and stress – I didn't mean any harm. I'll stop moving stuff or organizing stuff with out a full discussion. -- Brad D. (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC) :::::::Thanks. I'm sorry to get huffy; I know how easy it is to get carried away with a new wiki idea. I've done it myself. I think it'll help if we try the guideline that I suggested on Current events -- to talk about any category change before it happens. That way, it's not personal; it's just the system that we use. -- Danny (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC) :This should be discussed in general, but there's never been any "rule" about seperating Sesame Street characters. For myself, I try to keep the one-off specials and movie characters seperate when possible, just because several such characters or puppets have sometimes been recycled on Sesame Street proper and I like to keep such a distinction clear (Board of Birds were all reused while Miss Finch was not, and so on, and I just kind of like to keep The Monkey King and so on and especially alternatue universe things like King Fred Cahrming, in a world where Baby Bear and Telly are brothers, seperate in some way). But that's mostly a personal thing for me which has come up for discussion in specific instances, and is certainly always worth discussing. Not a rule or trend or a reflection of consensus by any means. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC) :And just a general friendly note, Brad. Just because something, like The Dark Crystal categorization thing, has been around a few months doesn't make it a "precedent." It just means either nobody noticed or nobody really knew what to do about it, and no discussion was raised to address how to deal with the issue. Just like pages which use "epsiode" or "Sal Manillia" aren't precedent, they just slipped through the cracks,. or reflect one or two user's idiosyncracies. :) -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Movie categories Hey, Brad -- In general, our guidelines are that a category should either have articles or subcategories, but not both. I notice that you're adding a lot of movie categories right now that include both. The Muppet Treasure Island category says that it's only for subcategories, but you've added some articles to it... -- Danny (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC) :And now I see that you've created the Movie Categories category. Can we all talk about this before you go further with it? I'm not sure that the structure that you're creating makes sense. -- Danny (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ::My idea was to group articles by production using categories. If someone is interested in The Muppet Movie or The Dark Crystal they should be able to find all the articles on topics uniquly and directly related to the said production easily in one spot. In doing research on The Muppet Christmas Carol I hate having to go all over the wiki to find products, productions, and articles specifically tied to the production. I know we don't like mixing sub-cats and articles but it seems silly right now to create Muppets Take Manhattan Culture to house 1 article (Manhattan Melodies) or Dark Crystal Documentaries just for World of the Dark Crystal; but it also seems silly to have to not categorized in a way to associte them with said production. I didn't think I was out of line, since Category:Dark Crystal has been in a similar mixed state of sub-cats and 4 misc. articles since January (over 11-months) and no one has objected. -- Brad D. (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC) :::That does make sense. It occurs to me that it might be easier just to turn Muppet Movies into the top category, rather than "Movie Categories". I'll show you what I mean... -- Danny (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ::::My gripe is that it should only be done if there's no alternative. I agree it works with Manhattan, and I never really liked the Dark Crystal set-up (though in fact now there's enough, with the developments, for a "Dark Crystal Productions" or something). But it just always seems silly to have the parent production subcategorized, when it's easier to just link the text at the top of the category, and we always include links to related categories (and when we don't, we should) as See Alsos anyway. I also don't think Dickens, Stevenson, and other literary stuff should be dumped in. They're related, but it seems to me it opens the door for too much mixed bag stuff; since one could just as easily categorize Jerry Juhl in Muppet Christmas Carol as Dickens. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC) :::::I just made The Muppet Movie as a subcat of Muppet Movies, to show what I was talking about. But I should probably stop messing around, since now there's two of us working in different directions. That's why I was saying let's talk about this before we do all the work of changing everything, because it's possible that then we'll have to redo it all. -- Danny (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::Oh, sorry. I just took a few out from Carol and Oz, I didn't mean to add to the problem. I'll leave it alone, I need to panic about other things anyway. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC) :::::I see what you did Danny and I like that. And I buy the Dickens/Stevenson thing, Andrew (just like we don't put Kermit in characters for every film, there has to be a line drawn as to what is/isn't associated). But with things such as "Inside the Labyrinth" or "Frogs, Pigs and Humbug: Unwrapping a New Holiday Classic" it seems odd not to have them associated in a way with their production in some way. It would be silly to create "Very Merry Muppet Christmas Songs" just for Everyone Matters but it also seems wrong for someone looking for things assocated with VMX to have to find that one article by diving into "Muppet Songs" or having it as an awkard tacked on "see also". -- Brad D. (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::Santa Baby is also in Very Merry Christmas... -- Danny (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC) :::::::Okay, I moved the categories to Muppet Movies. The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth are their own categories. -- Danny (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Looks good. -- Brad D. (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Archive *Muppet Wiki Talk Archives